« Socialist Commune of Banbury | Main | Shock. Huhne delivers? »

January 22, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

D.G.

"'Junta' is an accurate and appropriate term for the coalition. Look it up in a dictionary. It's also interesting and provocative."

The commonly accepted definition of junta is a group of military officers that have seized power; not the second, obcure meaning you hide behind.

You wouldn't think it acceptable for me to call you a twat and pretend I was likening you to a pregnant fish.

http://www.dictionary.co.uk/word/Twat

It's not provocative and interesting; it's just immature and petulant, as I've said before when you used the term to refer to Newport council.

D.G.

"When Labour was in Government, what did they do about jobs for young, white people?"

There were plenty of jobs when Labour was in Government, even in Newport. And there still are, if you're not too soft to do a Saturday night shift at McDonalds.

The issue was (and still is) the lack of security in the flexible work compared to the reliabilty of benefits. Hopefully IDS' proposals will help address this and make flexible working beneficial to employees and employers alike.

Paul Flynn

There is no reason Junican why your post should not be accepted - unless it contained forbidden racist or obscene language.

I voted for the smoking with enthusiasm and I would do so again. There has been a steep decline in the use of pubs over the past 20 years and especially over the past 10 years. This is mainly due to increased drinking at home and more popular TV shows. To blame it all on the smoking ban is ridiculous.

Paul Flynn

'Junta' is an accurate and appropriate term for the coalition. Look it up in a dictionary. It's also interesting and provocative. I have used in the House of Commons. the Speaker did not object and Labour members approved. so Junta it is.

Kay Tie

"but I’ll bet that I know a damn sight more than you about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and similar matters."

You presume too much, old boy.

It's stupidly racist to call for special treatment for white people. Just as it is to do so for black people. And if you know Einstein well you'll know what he though of human stupidity.

patrick

Junican

Make ambiguous statements so you can give self indulgent answers – you are so interesting!

If my comment on you promoting ill-health is wrong then I ask you for the third time –

In what way is supporting smoking and the Tobacco industry beneficial to the next generations health?

Junican

Oh dear! I have upset patrick and Kay Tie (and here's me, trying to be nice to Kay Tie!)

patrick! I though you were familiar with the idea of macro situations. Ethnic minorities are very much minorities. I did think about the possible implication of 'racism' before I wrote 'white' young males, but in the macro position, the fact is that the vast majority of the disaffected youth is white male, and is spread throughout the Country. The MSM find no racist problem in talking about young, white males. The important point is that trying to solve the problem of young ethnic minority males will be ineffectual when the vast majority of the disaffected are not ethnic. Solve the problem of unemployed, young, white males, and you will almost certainly solve the ethnic problem at the same time.

I must say that your comment about me wanting to make people unhealthy was a bit cheap – and I think that you know it. This also applies to your words about slavery, etc.

As regards Kay Tie, I agree with her last two paragraphs – more or less. If the Government wish to solve the problem of youth unemployment, then jobs which they can do need to be created. Clearly, this will involve the private sector.

But I do not see the need to describe me as ‘a bigot’. It certainly sounds nasty, although I am not quite sure what it means. It used to mean a person who holds a view which is unreasonably strict. For example, one could take a person who believes that black people are ‘de facto’ inferior. I would say that such a person is a bigot. But I would not say that a person who does not believe that SHS is harmful is a bigot.

Yes, I am of the older generation, Kay Tie, but I’ll bet that I know a damn sight more than you about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and similar matters. In fact, if it wasn’t for people like me, you would still be wearing a fur bikini when you visit that bar in Spain in glorious solitude.

Kay Tie

"THE PEOPLE are angry. I certainly am, even though I am a little old man who is retired. If I am angry, how much more angry must young unemployed people be?"

That a bigot of the older generation is angry is no surprise. The youth that are angry are the ones who had something for nothing and now that's being taken away - it is the tantrums of spoiled brats.

Jobs aren't created by an Act of Gordon or David: they are created when an activity has a need for some work to be done, and the value of the work exceeds the cost of the person. If you want more jobs, stop taxing them (isn't it quite ridiculous that we tax jobs?) and start doing things to make sure that there are activities that need people - stop driving companies abroad and stop stifling entrepreneurs.

This country has a wonderful culture of innovation and enterprise. It really does just need that unleashed for unemployment problems to be solved.

Richard T

The trouble with having my learned friends running enquiries is that both parties come accompanied and should Blair have been open to question by a smart barrister then he would have been represented himself and I suspect we wpould be no further forward. The outcome of the previous Hutton Enquiry does support my view although admittedly he came equipped with a few litres of government issue white wash to throw,

patrick

Junican
Good to see that your rage is not simply confined to making people unhealthy.

"When Labour was in Government, what did they do about jobs for young, white people?"

I would have thought it would be a little bit tricky for the government to insist that employers give jobs to white people only in 21st C Britain.

Maybe it would have worked around about 1930?

But don't sell yourself short you forgot to mention bringing back slavery , wife beating, sticking kids up chimneys, drink driving etc...

Junican

I am watching the TV news at this moment. There are reports about political upheaval in Algeria, similar to Tunisia. There are reports from Albania about protests re the shooting of protesters.

People (mostly young people) are angry. They are mostly angry about the lack of jobs. When Labour was in Government, what did they do about jobs for young, white people? They did nothing! What they did instead was punish young people for being unemployed.

THE PEOPLE are angry. I certainly am, even though I am a little old man who is retired. If I am angry, how much more angry must young unemployed people be? Using propaganda to suggest that young people are work-shy will not go any more. No one with any sense believes it.

The last Government created jobs which were 'word' jobs. That is, jobs which were just the creation of words. They also decided to create jobs building windmills. Real jobs depend upon the manufacturing sector. That being the case, why is the Gov intent upon increasing the costs of manufacturing companies and rendering our industry uncompetitive in the world?

The situation becomes more non-sensical every day.

I see no alternative but to go for full employment. Firms that cannot get workers need to adapt. Oh, and the import of workers must be forbidden, unless strictly necessary - this country is overcrowded.

Junican

I tried to make a post on the "Omens at Westminster" thread, but I received the message 'data unacceptable'. I do not know why. Anyway, below is the message that I was trying to post. I wouldn't bother, if it were not that the message has some important thoughts:

""Ah, Mr Flynn. Glad to see that you amended your previous post...What was it? WHS or something? I thought that it must be a typo!

But I am not absolutely sure that the 'Paul Flynn' is actually 'Paul Flynn MP'. I trust that there is not an impostor posting here!
No...that cannot be the case since an impostor would not be able to scrub a post and replace it.

It must be very nice for you to know that every enclosed place in the country (even it is outside and has more than 50% enclosure), whether you go there or not, is available for your pleasure and entertainment, and to know that this applies throughout Europe, more or less.
The problem is that if you do not go to these places frequently, and few other people do, then they close down - and they are closing down in their thousands. Why are they closing down? Because anti-smokers do not go to them, and non-smokers, who never worried about the small remnant of tobacco smoke which evaded the extractors, now find these places boring and are also staying away, along with the smokers.

I need to ask you this question, Mr Flynn:

When you voted for the smoking ban, did you realise that thousands of pubs would close down, or did you accept ASH's assurances that their surveys showed that there were masses and masses of non-smokers and anti-smokers who could not wait for pubs to become non-smoking establishments?

Or is it that you do not care whether pubs and clubs close down or not? But it isn't just pubs and clubs closing down, is it? The fact is that the smoking ban inhibits the opening of new places. Even the idea of a private members club for people who enjoy tobacco is prohibited. I'll say that again - "Even a private club, run by people who enjoy tobacco for people who enjoy tobacco is prohibited."

One might justify this prohibition on grounds similar to the justification of, say, the forced wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists. But, tell me again why a person who owns a motorcycle cannot decide for himself whether or not he should take the risk of not wearing a crash helmet? If motor cycles are so dangerous, ought they not to have been banned entirely? And should not mountain climbing be banned for the same reason?

The Smoking Ban is a disaster. 15 million people are starting to ask questions about any and all prohibitions. Tell me again why grown up people should not enjoy cannabis if they wish to do so? Tell me again what this weird idea of 'smuggling' is? Tell me again why there should be extra taxes (duties) on some commodities and not on others?

The Smoking Ban has opened up a huge can of worms. Now that the can of worms has been opened, it cannot be closed again. You have Tobacco Control and the WHO to thank for this.

On Nick Clegg's Freedom site, there was massive support for an amendment to the Smoking Ban. There was also massive support for an amendment to the cannabis ban. It may be that Clegg wants these matters to just go away, but they will not. What has been revealed by the Smoking Ban is that our basic freedoms are being eroded, a bit at a time. This idea is spreading throughout the web.

There is a lot of anger in THE PEOPLE. You and yours have created it. It will not go away"".

Junican

For once, Kay Tie, I agree with you! (Just goes to show that we do have things in common).

It bothers me that politicians have so little to do that they have the time to spend calling each other names.

Kay Tie

"Always funny when KayTie calls others bigoted ,rude or morally dubious."

You can dish it out, you can't take it. Like so many on the Left.

I see today the New Statesman is advocating the disruption of the Royal Wedding. If the Daily Mail advocated a huge demonstration to burst into last year's Labour Party conference there would be predictable outraged squealing. But this kind of undemocratic thuggishness passes without comment from Labour MPs.

Total hypocrisy.

HuwOS

Always funny when KayTie calls others bigoted ,rude or morally dubious.

Kay Tie

"Many young couples fed up with the Tory-LibDem Junta."

Why is it OK for you to call the Government a "Junta" yet a Tory MP calling your lot a Communist Politburo would be criticised? If UKIP fringe campaigners smashed shop windows and threw fire extinguishers from buildings you'd be screaming "Right wing!" yet not a peep from you about the thuggish violence of UKuncut.

Let's face facts: you and your comrades are institutionally hypocrites. It's wired into your very DNA. You think you allowed to be bigoted, rude and libellous to anyone on the Right, but you scream and shout if anything even mild gets dished out at you.

Is it because you think you are good people with good intentions that you give yourselves permission to stoop to morally dubious tactics?

The comments to this entry are closed.